I was very satisfied with FTP uploading at archive.org. I was able to see exactly how much of the upload had been completed. I was able to see the rate at which the upload was progressing. And, perhaps most important of all, I was able to resume an interrupted upload. In other words, if I had uploaded 90% of a file when the connection was lost, all I had to do was reconnect and upload the remaining 10%.
The programmers at archive.org have eliminated the best way of uploading, uploading via FTP. They have decided to force everyone to use an inferior, cruder method.
The programmers at archive.org want you to be completely dependent upon and at the mercy of Adobe Corporation; in other words, they want you to use the Flash uploader.
When using the Flash uploader, there is a progress indicator that gives only a very rough idea of how much of the file has been uploaded. There is nothing to indicate the rate at which the upload is progressing. There is no way to resume an interrupted upload.
The Flash uploader is much more primitive than uploading by FTP.
When attempting to use the non-flash uploader, this message appears:
"Unfortunately we do not have upload progress feedback while files transfer during this (non-flash) method."
And, of course, there is no way to resume an interrupted upload.
But the incompetent programmers at archive.org will probably tell you that the non-FTP methods of uploading are "way kewl" and have lots of nifty blinking lights.
When the programmers at archive.org removed the best way of uploading, they didn't make it easier to upload. They made it harder. They probably resented that the best way made their ways seem so clunky by comparison. And they felt that they needed to make it appear that they were earning their paychecks by making some sort of an "improvement".
It seems that they have no interest in making things easier for contributors to archive.org and that they are only interested in making things easier for themselves.
I have uploaded over 200 videos (feature films and television shows) to archive.org. Since the programmers at archive.org have used their time to sabotage FTP uploading, I will be unable to upload any more videos.
Confusion ensues after a "kid sister" poses as the maid.
August 3, 2013 Subject:
I think the best like was when her mom was whining about her dress being low cut "I thought if I tucked it in a little people would stop patting my head and pulling some wheeze...." wow. :)
And enjoyable hour.
October 4, 2010 Subject:
This comedy is not quite a screwball comedy, but does not take itself too seriously. There are worse ways to kill 53 minutes.
I like Roger Pryor and this story suits him perfectly. Judy Clark plays the part of an impetuous if dizzy young woman who stubbornly demands her way in a most polite fashion.
I rate the movie with 3 stars overall and add an extra star because it is well paced, for a total of 4.
July 12, 2010 Subject:
Has some flair
I liked it
July 12, 2010 Subject:
Dialog, dialog, dialog!
An entertaining quickie romantic comedy with a creepy element. A precocious teenager (Judy Clark) sets bait for her older sister's boyfriend (Roger Pryor), and lands him. Frank Jenks, as an unsuccessful house burglar, throws everything into confusion. The creepy element is the uncharismatic Pryor is too old for his role, giving this one the uncomfortable feel of a cradle-robbing. Judy Clark is appealing as the fast-talking teenage girl. However her dialog is seriously over-written, and at times a bit too worldly for her character to be believable. Nevertheless she is fun, and so is this movie. I definitely will watch it again. The print is in okay shape, but a little under three minutes are missing. CAST NOTE: Who is Judy Clark? She appeared in twenty-seven film and TV productions (many of them from PRC, and likely to be PD), yet I could find no biographical data on her. If you have any, please post it or a link to the info in the Feature Films Forum. Thanks.
June 29, 2010 Subject:
Quick moving little tale
I liked this one, it was fast and had a good story-line.